Originally posted by MikeVet
They are NOT tasked with determining what happened INSIDE the rubble pile AFTER the collapse. To assert otherwise, you must provide a mission
statement that clearly states this, otherwise.......

Funny thing is: No one knows if it happened in the rubble pile or before collapse (which COULD be a factor of collapse).

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has
been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the
collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel
structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures
exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

Emphasis mine.

Even FEMA agrees with me that this phenomenon should be studied more.

Why the lack of interest from NIST?

Again this sounds like it should be tasked to some type of materials safety agency,

Is that not what NIST is?

or looked at within the industry.

Gypsum has been fire tested with steel many times within the industry.

It is apparently a concern for you, as it should, given your position. So I'll ask again, are you aware of what other agencies
could/should/can look into this, and are you asking them about it?

Other agencies are not tasked nor funded for this. NIST is. Do you work for NIST or something? You sure do defend them at all consequence.

Again with the melted gypsum. Why are you hung up on this? I don't remember anyone even remotely hinting at gypsum "melting", other than
you.

What the hell are you trying to twist me into saying? I am NOT saying anything of the sorts.

The sentence "gypsum melting and corroding steel" means that the gypsum is melting the steel. NOT that gypsum is melting.

It is reasonable to assume that the gypsum was pulverized during the collapse. This is the basis for what I've been saying/quoting. If you
want to go off down the road about melting gypsum, be my guest, but you'll be taking that trip alone my friend.

Obviously you've taken one too many "trips" yourself if you can't understand that "melting" in that sentence is the verb and it's action is on
the noun "steel".

Heating in the ground in the twin towers rubble all by itself? How? The surrounding area around the twin towers 6 sub-level foundation was bedrock.
Piles of steel and concrete and drywall dust, packed in so tightly in the footprint, people could walk on those areas from now until doomsday and
never drop in.

Those rubble piles were in no way conducive to becoming organic compost piles, which do heat inside due to natural chemical reactions, involving decay
of organic matter. Gases from decaying organic matter melt nothing but do self-heat inside compost piles.

The only way the heat could remain in that rubble was by apply chemical to the steel before it becames part of the rubble. Thermite and thermate are
well-know for causing a sulpheric acidic, corrosive reaction on steel. If not cleaned off, the steel will heat and continue to melt for as long as
thermite or thermate reacts on steel. It could be weeks or longer.

FEMA designated which pieces NIST could take, and NIST was not allowed to take anything FEMA did not mark "Saved". I do not fault NIST for not
having the evidence they needed. If they had fought to get it, anyone fighting would have been fired, which would have kept the rest in line, IF they
wanted to keep their jobs, benefits, and any perks.

NIST is not an independent lab. It is a federal agency controlled by whoever is occupying the White House and controlling both houses. Since the case
was a GOP controlled house and senate, Bush got exactly what he demanded of all federal agencies and departments.

I primarily fault NIST because the personnel caved into promoting the "official" reports. They decided not to be scientists but apologists for the
Bush administration instead. Yet, laced throughout their report is the clearly implied statement, they did not have what they needed to examine,
because they were prevented from doing so. The report is the self-evidence of that through connotation (implication) not denotation (defintion).

Sure, I will compare the WTC to other skyscrapers that have had fully fueled jetliners crashed into them.

The only difference is you take out 15% of the support on a group of floors. Taken with the safety factor that's not much. Comparing the collapses
to the theory of evolution is a MUCH bigger reach. At least intelligence would be partly involved in evolution (and thus maybe some order and
"design" to it), but not so much dumb steel members that are being thrown around in paths you can model with numbers and that result from some
initial completely asymmetrical configuration. Symmetry in that would be man-made.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And evolution is the ULTIMATE in random combination of factors that lead to a statistically IMPOSSIBLE occurance.

Are you kidding? Evolution was a random combination of factors that just combined to evolve life? And the evolution of life is impossible? Do you
have proof of this? There is a random factor to evolution (genetic drift) but it's hardly a random combination of factors as you are
claiming. The randomness is in what, or who, in a group of animals is effected, not 'factors' that created the change. It's not a random mixing
of chemicals like you're suggesting.

If that's what most Americans think I can see why now some deny evolution, because they just don't understand it.

Even so your logic is seriously flawed and explains why you can't see a problem with 3 buildings globally collapsing, one into it's own footprint,
from sporadic fires and asymmetrical damage.

I could take the ingredients of a cake and randomly throw them together for the rest of existence, it's not going to turn into a cake.

Go take a science class and see if just throwing things together will produce the result you want. This is as bad as claiming thermite could be made
accidentally with aluminum from the plane and rust from the columns. Hollywood science! You'll tell yourself anything to keep denying what's right
in front of your eyes in plane sight.

The only difference is you take out 15% of the support on a group of floors. Taken with the safety factor that's not much. Comparing the collapses to
the theory of evolution is a MUCH bigger reach.

Except for a few facts....I wasnt comparing the collapses to the theory of evolution. Didnt really think it was THAT hard to understand what I was
saying...I mean, several of the "official" story folks understood it.

Guess I made it too hard for those who are reaching for conspiracies....

Second, it was more than 15% of the support that was lost, combined with the fire....ah heck its been covered too many times for me to repeat
myself......

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Second, it was more than 15% of the support that was lost, combined with the fire....

How much more? Because that's all the impacts did. The rest of your post was a rant, because no matter how you insult me you still obviously just
compared an idea related to evolution to an idea related to the collapses.

And again, I wonder how Anok completely missed the point.....

No, he just showed you again why your comparison is completely illogical. I wonder why you don't care whether or not what you say makes any sense?
You just feel your facts from your gut, like Colbert says?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And again, I wonder how Anok completely missed the point.....

I did? OK let's go over this, you were trying to say that because you think evolution is a random collection of 'forces' that creates a
'statistically impossible occurance' that chemicals, or 'forces' I guess, in the towers came together randomly and produced reactions that were
not only 'statistically improbable' but scientifically impossible?

The discussion was mentioning how gypsum, in combination with other items, could cause the issues with the steel. A random combination of
factors that lead to a statistically improbable occurance.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Second, it was more than 15% of the support that was lost, combined with the fire....ah heck its been covered too many times for me to repeat
myself......

You have absolutely NO proof of this. There is NO proof that ANY of the columns in the central structure were even scratched let alone completely
failed.

And even if they were you still have completely undamaged columns that somehow created no friction as they were crushed, or pulled down, or whatever
the hypothesis is now during the collapses. Sry but office fires and asymmetrical damage will never create symmetrical collapses, let alone complete
global failure. If you can prove that can happen, by re-creating the effect in the lab, then you are a genius and I'll be your slave for the rest of
my life. Can you put your money where your mouth is? Can any of you!
I'd say the chances are 'statistically improbable'...

You see how your official story just falls apart when you realise what you've been told is not fact, not proof, and doesn't even make scientific
sense.
The official story relies on people believing in events that there is NO proof happened and are 'statistically improbable', as you yourself
admit...

Originally posted by ANOK
OK let's go over this, you were trying to say that because you think evolution is a random collection of 'forces' that creates a 'statistically
impossible occurance' that chemicals, or 'forces' I guess, in the towers came together randomly and produced reactions that were not only
'statistically improbable' but scientifically impossible?

I think what Swampfox was getting at with his doublespeak was that the more impossible it seems, the more likely it must REALLY be, because of
evolution, of course.

Really evolution is like a black sheep today because of how "random" it is compared to other sciences. All that tells me is that we don't
really understand it. Because it doesn't look very "random" to me.

It wasnt a question about the towers or even evolution actually. It was a question about the people on this board and their quest to find a
conspiracy because they think we KNOW all there is to know about the physical world.

How much more? Because that's all the impacts did. The rest of your post was a rant, because no matter how you insult me you still obviously just
compared an idea related to evolution to an idea related to the collapses.

"All the impacts did"?? Looking at the visual evidence, over 30% of the perimeter supports of both towers were compromised, (we will never know
just how badly the center core was compromised) if not severed, by the impacts. I dont care WHO designed the buildings, they were going to collapse.
You can throw all the equations you want about load factors etc...and it STILL wont change the fact that scientific/mathematic facts...are only facts
until we discover we are wrong (try studying history folks, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, Hawking etc....until those gents came around,
humans believed a lot differently, and like humans today, were convinced they knew everything)

Preemptive strike....I know someone will chime in that "They were designed to withstand the impact of an airliner" To which I say the Titanic was
designed to be unsinkable and we remember how well that worked out.

Bsbray, if you feel insulted, well thats on you. Because I was making observations.

I wonder why you don't care whether or not what you say makes any sense? You just feel your facts from your gut, like Colbert says?

Whether or not what I say makes sense? Everything I say, makes sense....provided you actually understand what Im saying. As for "feeling my
facts", no, I rely on the physical evidence and accept that there are ALWAYS curiousities in almost any event that are never fully explained.

you have absolutely NO proof of this. There is NO proof that ANY of the columns in the central structure were even scratched let alone completely
failed

Actually, we do have some proof that the central core was damaged in both towers. Each tower had three stairwells within the core structure. In one
tower, all three stairwells were damaged to the point where people above that section could not get down, the other tower two stairwells were damaged
to the point of impassability. Sorry, but that just does not happen WITHOUT damage being caused to the core. I know you wont accept that, and as I
said before, we will never know just how badly the centers were damaged, but the facts are, we know they were.

Sry but office fires and asymmetrical damage will never create symmetrical collapses, let alone complete global failure. If you can prove that can
happen, by re-creating the effect in the lab, then you are a genius and I'll be your slave for the rest of my life.

Never, until 9/11/01 you mean.

Another side note. The investigators of the turret explosion on the USS Iowa, used their math/science/investigative skills and were POSITIVE, it had
to have been a bomb. It took over 1,000 attempts by Sandia Labs to get a similar event to happen. Shouldnt have happened, couldnt have happened..and
yet....on 2 occasions, once in April 1989 and once in 1992....it did happen.

One thing that many "conspiracy" types on this board, share with the FBI, CIA, DoD, is human arrogance....on the part of the Government agencies,
arrogance to believe that we were so mighty that we could not be hurt as bad as we were, as easy as it happened.

On the part of the conspiracy types, arrogance to believe that they know and understand all aspects of the physical/engineering world. And the
refusal to accept when their 'beliefs' are proven wrong.

From whom or where did you get that 30% data? From some hearsay report(s)? Or were you in the buildings examining and calculating all that, from up
close and personal examination, before the buildings collapsed?

I agree with others you are wrong. There is no possible way to know that, because the buildings collapsed, and could not be properly measured for how
much load support any part of floor(s) had to shift to remain stable.

Please do not used the "official" reports as your "evidence" There is no factual evidence of what you are stating from NIST or anyone else.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.